Thank you, Madam Faille.
Madam Fraser, if I might, I'd like to draw your attention back to the medium- to heavy-lift helicopter project. I refer specifically to page 20 of that chapter, and I do it for illustrative purposes. I like the play on words that you used in another report. There is one thing that concerns me, and it is your discussion with respect to this project and the process you outlined, a process on which at least one of the departments disagrees with your conclusions and interpretations.
We're always here to talk about openness, accountability, and transparency. I think you said, without using the exact words, that through the process, the departmental officials—and since there are three departments at play, maybe you could identify which one is most reflective of this—provided information for decision-makers that was incomplete and perhaps not totally accurate, thereby causing decision-makers to make a decision that led to an amendment to the contract in 2009. I believe you indicated as well that there was another contract amendment earlier this year, although it was not captured by your audit. I note that on page 20, even though you say that your audit began in 2006, you made reference to a decision to go into the medium- and heavy-lift helicopter contract the previous year. So this covers a five-year period.
We began by talking about and complimenting the bureaucracy, our functionaries, who have been doing a very good job. I think government members have drawn the attention to the fact that seven out of the ten audits are great, but you paint a disturbing picture of some of the officials in those departments with respect to this particular project.
I know you're going to give some really specific answers to Mr. Bachand and I believe to Mr. Shipley's questions, but do you not find that your observations with respect to the information provided, withheld, or adjusted by the departments on this project to be more than troubling?